1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff is a representative business entity of the C gas station located in Kimhae-si B (hereinafter “instant gas station”).

B. On March 3, 2016, the Defendant imposed a penalty surcharge of KRW 100 million on the Plaintiff on the following grounds:

(hereinafter collectively referred to as "disposition in this case"). [Grounds for Disposition] C gas station (representative A) sells to an unspecified number of consumers who have gasing gasoline equivalent to 168,703 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the instant fake gasoline") mixed with solvents from October 21, 2015 to December 18, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "base statutes"): Violation of Article 29 (1) 1 of the Petroleum and Petroleum Substitute Fuel Business Act (hereinafter referred to as "petroleum Business Act"): Article 13 (3) 8 of the Petroleum Business Act; Article 16 [Attachment 1] 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

(c) 12)(b) 2 - Petroleum Business Act - Article 14(1)3 of the Petroleum Business Act, Article 17(1) [Attachment 2] 1 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

(h) 2 - Article 39-2(2) of the Petroleum Business Act, and Article 46-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act.

C. On March 4, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Superior-do Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on April 27, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 9, 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s non-existence of the grounds for disposition purchased gasoline from E and sold it as a mixture of static gasoline. However, there is no fact that the Plaintiff sold fake, which is a mixture of scam. There was no determination data from the Institute, and there was no accurate fact-finding in the present criminal trial in this case. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s act of selling it was unlawful on the grounds that there was no ground for disposition. 2) The nature of the instant act of selling and abusing it is a deviation from and abuse of discretionary power.